Llambias on SSN

[Guest malandro]

There is a tendency that argues that if Ashley hadn't come then we could have gone out of business. The fact is that nothing is more likely to have exposed the club to that risk than relegation; to argue anything other is facile and Ashley achieved this quick-time. He deserves no credit for putting money into the club other than on a personal level from his inheritors; he is only protecting his investment.

 

All I want from him is to have the club managed in a sensible and progressive way and then we will have a chance at success.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course no one knows if we'd have gone out of business if Ashley hadn't bought the club. But when he did buy it our balance sheet was insolvent and that means that someone had to guarantee to fund the club for the next 12 months or the auditors wouldn't sign it off as a going concern. If its not signed off as a going concern every secured creditor has the right to foreclose.

 

So who was going to give that guarantee if Ashley didn't?

I do, and the answers is no. ;-)Football clubs only go out of business when their debts exceed the market value of the club in a solvent state, and a solvent NUFC is worth a more than £75m. Things have changed now though, because the clubs debts have nearly trebled in three years and now exceed its market value.

didn't quayside point out that we were insolvent and ashley had to prove he had the funds to keep us going to the auditors ?

And?

you said the answer was no as solvent clubs could blah blah blah................our balance sheet wasn't solvent.

No I didn’t. Do you want me to rephrase it so you can have another stab at the reading thing?

Football clubs only go out of business when their debts exceed the market value of the club in a solvent state, and a solvent NUFC is worth a more than £75m.

 

that to me doesn't describe an insolvent balance sheet.

Did I say the club had to be solvent at the point of sale?

 

It all boils down to getting a return on your investment. An insolvent business isn’t automatically a dead duck; it can still represent an attractive acquisition if the potential future income exceeds its liabilities.  The debt levels merely determine the price, and since NUFC was sold for £135m there was clearly a long way to go before it became worthless.

 

[madras]

There is a tendency that argues that if Ashley hadn't come then we could have gone out of business. The fact is that nothing is more likely to have exposed the club to that risk than relegation; to argue anything other is facile and Ashley achieved this quick-time. He deserves no credit for putting money into the club other than on a personal level from his inheritors; he is only protecting his investment.

 

All I want from him is to have the club managed in a sensible and progressive way and then we will have a chance at success.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course no one knows if we'd have gone out of business if Ashley hadn't bought the club. But when he did buy it our balance sheet was insolvent and that means that someone had to guarantee to fund the club for the next 12 months or the auditors wouldn't sign it off as a going concern. If its not signed off as a going concern every secured creditor has the right to foreclose.

 

So who was going to give that guarantee if Ashley didn't?

I do, and the answers is no. ;-)Football clubs only go out of business when their debts exceed the market value of the club in a solvent state, and a solvent NUFC is worth a more than £75m. Things have changed now though, because the clubs debts have nearly trebled in three years and now exceed its market value.

didn't quayside point out that we were insolvent and ashley had to prove he had the funds to keep us going to the auditors ?

And?

you said the answer was no as solvent clubs could blah blah blah................our balance sheet wasn't solvent.

No I didn’t. Do you want me to rephrase it so you can have another stab at the reading thing?

Football clubs only go out of business when their debts exceed the market value of the club in a solvent state, and a solvent NUFC is worth a more than £75m.

 

that to me doesn't describe an insolvent balance sheet.

Did I say the club had to be solvent at the point of sale?

 

It all boils down to getting a return on your investment. An insolvent business isn’t automatically a dead duck; it can still represent an attractive acquisition if the potential future income exceeds its liabilities.  The debt levels merely determine the price, and since NUFC was sold for £135m there was clearly a long way to go before it became worthless.

 

had ashley done due dilligence hall/shepherd would have got nowhere near that figure. would it be going to far to say ashley was the only one interested and he quite possibly wouldn't have bought had he known the full scale of things............then what was there to keep us solvent ?

[quayside]

There is a tendency that argues that if Ashley hadn't come then we could have gone out of business. The fact is that nothing is more likely to have exposed the club to that risk than relegation; to argue anything other is facile and Ashley achieved this quick-time. He deserves no credit for putting money into the club other than on a personal level from his inheritors; he is only protecting his investment.

 

All I want from him is to have the club managed in a sensible and progressive way and then we will have a chance at success.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course no one knows if we'd have gone out of business if Ashley hadn't bought the club. But when he did buy it our balance sheet was insolvent and that means that someone had to guarantee to fund the club for the next 12 months or the auditors wouldn't sign it off as a going concern. If its not signed off as a going concern every secured creditor has the right to foreclose.

 

So who was going to give that guarantee if Ashley didn't?

I do, and the answers is no. ;-)Football clubs only go out of business when their debts exceed the market value of the club in a solvent state, and a solvent NUFC is worth a more than £75m. Things have changed now though, because the clubs debts have nearly trebled in three years and now exceed its market value.

didn't quayside point out that we were insolvent and ashley had to prove he had the funds to keep us going to the auditors ?

And?

you said the answer was no as solvent clubs could blah blah blah................our balance sheet wasn't solvent.

No I didnt. Do you want me to rephrase it so you can have another stab at the reading thing?

Football clubs only go out of business when their debts exceed the market value of the club in a solvent state, and a solvent NUFC is worth a more than £75m.

 

that to me doesn't describe an insolvent balance sheet.

Did I say the club had to be solvent at the point of sale?

 

It all boils down to getting a return on your investment. An insolvent business isnt automatically a dead duck; it can still represent an attractive acquisition if the potential future income exceeds its liabilities.  The debt levels merely determine the price, and since NUFC was sold for £135m there was clearly a long way to go before it became worthless.

 

had ashley done due dilligence hall/shepherd would have got nowhere near that figure. would it be going to far to say ashley was the only one interested and he quite possibly wouldn't have bought had he known the full scale of things............then what was there to keep us solvent ?

 

Yup good points. Others had a look but ran a mile after doing due diligence.

Lerner paid £66 million for Villa and it was solvent and had very little debt, different business model I know but were we worth double the price? Would be astonished if Ashley would have bought us knowing what he knows now.

[Guest malandro]

There is a tendency that argues that if Ashley hadn't come then we could have gone out of business. The fact is that nothing is more likely to have exposed the club to that risk than relegation; to argue anything other is facile and Ashley achieved this quick-time. He deserves no credit for putting money into the club other than on a personal level from his inheritors; he is only protecting his investment.

 

All I want from him is to have the club managed in a sensible and progressive way and then we will have a chance at success.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course no one knows if we'd have gone out of business if Ashley hadn't bought the club. But when he did buy it our balance sheet was insolvent and that means that someone had to guarantee to fund the club for the next 12 months or the auditors wouldn't sign it off as a going concern. If its not signed off as a going concern every secured creditor has the right to foreclose.

 

So who was going to give that guarantee if Ashley didn't?

I do, and the answers is no. ;-)Football clubs only go out of business when their debts exceed the market value of the club in a solvent state, and a solvent NUFC is worth a more than £75m. Things have changed now though, because the clubs debts have nearly trebled in three years and now exceed its market value.

didn't quayside point out that we were insolvent and ashley had to prove he had the funds to keep us going to the auditors ?

And?

you said the answer was no as solvent clubs could blah blah blah................our balance sheet wasn't solvent.

No I didn’t. Do you want me to rephrase it so you can have another stab at the reading thing?

Football clubs only go out of business when their debts exceed the market value of the club in a solvent state, and a solvent NUFC is worth a more than £75m.

 

that to me doesn't describe an insolvent balance sheet.

Did I say the club had to be solvent at the point of sale?

 

It all boils down to getting a return on your investment. An insolvent business isn’t automatically a dead duck; it can still represent an attractive acquisition if the potential future income exceeds its liabilities.  The debt levels merely determine the price, and since NUFC was sold for £135m there was clearly a long way to go before it became worthless.

 

had ashley done due dilligence hall/shepherd would have got nowhere near that figure. would it be going to far to say ashley was the only one interested and he quite possibly wouldn't have bought had he known the full scale of things............then what was there to keep us solvent ?

What price would they have got then, and how do you arrive at this figure?

[madras]

There is a tendency that argues that if Ashley hadn't come then we could have gone out of business. The fact is that nothing is more likely to have exposed the club to that risk than relegation; to argue anything other is facile and Ashley achieved this quick-time. He deserves no credit for putting money into the club other than on a personal level from his inheritors; he is only protecting his investment.

 

All I want from him is to have the club managed in a sensible and progressive way and then we will have a chance at success.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course no one knows if we'd have gone out of business if Ashley hadn't bought the club. But when he did buy it our balance sheet was insolvent and that means that someone had to guarantee to fund the club for the next 12 months or the auditors wouldn't sign it off as a going concern. If its not signed off as a going concern every secured creditor has the right to foreclose.

 

So who was going to give that guarantee if Ashley didn't?

I do, and the answers is no. ;-)Football clubs only go out of business when their debts exceed the market value of the club in a solvent state, and a solvent NUFC is worth a more than £75m. Things have changed now though, because the clubs debts have nearly trebled in three years and now exceed its market value.

didn't quayside point out that we were insolvent and ashley had to prove he had the funds to keep us going to the auditors ?

And?

you said the answer was no as solvent clubs could blah blah blah................our balance sheet wasn't solvent.

No I didn’t. Do you want me to rephrase it so you can have another stab at the reading thing?

Football clubs only go out of business when their debts exceed the market value of the club in a solvent state, and a solvent NUFC is worth a more than £75m.

 

that to me doesn't describe an insolvent balance sheet.

Did I say the club had to be solvent at the point of sale?

 

It all boils down to getting a return on your investment. An insolvent business isn’t automatically a dead duck; it can still represent an attractive acquisition if the potential future income exceeds its liabilities.  The debt levels merely determine the price, and since NUFC was sold for £135m there was clearly a long way to go before it became worthless.

 

had ashley done due dilligence hall/shepherd would have got nowhere near that figure. would it be going to far to say ashley was the only one interested and he quite possibly wouldn't have bought had he known the full scale of things............then what was there to keep us solvent ?

What price would they have got then, and how do you arrive at this figure?

i didn't arrive at any figure. it just seems to me that given freds last full years accounts wouldn't warrant the price that ashley paid which is also why those that did due dilligence ran a mile.

[Guest Roger Kint]

Its like watching Stevie Wonder trying to find his way out of Fenwicks this, just listen to quayside man

[quayside]

There is a tendency that argues that if Ashley hadn't come then we could have gone out of business. The fact is that nothing is more likely to have exposed the club to that risk than relegation; to argue anything other is facile and Ashley achieved this quick-time. He deserves no credit for putting money into the club other than on a personal level from his inheritors; he is only protecting his investment.

 

All I want from him is to have the club managed in a sensible and progressive way and then we will have a chance at success.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course no one knows if we'd have gone out of business if Ashley hadn't bought the club. But when he did buy it our balance sheet was insolvent and that means that someone had to guarantee to fund the club for the next 12 months or the auditors wouldn't sign it off as a going concern. If its not signed off as a going concern every secured creditor has the right to foreclose.

 

So who was going to give that guarantee if Ashley didn't?

I do, and the answers is no. ;-)Football clubs only go out of business when their debts exceed the market value of the club in a solvent state, and a solvent NUFC is worth a more than £75m. Things have changed now though, because the clubs debts have nearly trebled in three years and now exceed its market value.

didn't quayside point out that we were insolvent and ashley had to prove he had the funds to keep us going to the auditors ?

And?

you said the answer was no as solvent clubs could blah blah blah................our balance sheet wasn't solvent.

No I didn’t. Do you want me to rephrase it so you can have another stab at the reading thing?

Football clubs only go out of business when their debts exceed the market value of the club in a solvent state, and a solvent NUFC is worth a more than £75m.

 

that to me doesn't describe an insolvent balance sheet.

Did I say the club had to be solvent at the point of sale?

 

It all boils down to getting a return on your investment. An insolvent business isn’t automatically a dead duck; it can still represent an attractive acquisition if the potential future income exceeds its liabilities.  The debt levels merely determine the price, and since NUFC was sold for £135m there was clearly a long way to go before it became worthless.

 

had ashley done due dilligence hall/shepherd would have got nowhere near that figure. would it be going to far to say ashley was the only one interested and he quite possibly wouldn't have bought had he known the full scale of things............then what was there to keep us solvent ?

What price would they have got then, and how do you arrive at this figure?

 

The stock market was valuing us at about £80 million prior to Ashley getting up close, and bear in mind that valuation was obviously without any knowledge of the full state of the 2007 accounts.

[Guest fraser]

There is a tendency that argues that if Ashley hadn't come then we could have gone out of business. The fact is that nothing is more likely to have exposed the club to that risk than relegation; to argue anything other is facile and Ashley achieved this quick-time. He deserves no credit for putting money into the club other than on a personal level from his inheritors; he is only protecting his investment.

 

All I want from him is to have the club managed in a sensible and progressive way and then we will have a chance at success.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course no one knows if we'd have gone out of business if Ashley hadn't bought the club. But when he did buy it our balance sheet was insolvent and that means that someone had to guarantee to fund the club for the next 12 months or the auditors wouldn't sign it off as a going concern. If its not signed off as a going concern every secured creditor has the right to foreclose.

 

So who was going to give that guarantee if Ashley didn't?

 

This is not a point that can be validated and doesn't really add to the debate; we were never signed off as anything other than a going concern, given guarantees from the owner. The same guarantees could well have been forthcoming from the previous owners. The fact is we were truly exposed by relegation; don't let the anti-Shepherd view cloud your objectivity.

 

If you read my posts on other threads you will find that I am not anti Shepherd or pro Ashley, imo both have done some good things and some bad. Your idea that the Halls and the Shepherds would have guaranteed to fund the club is certainly interesting, given their track record on making their own funds available for investment.

 

And since Ashley had so much already tied up in the club how exposed were we by relegation in reality? He had to get us back up and didn't asset strip anywhere near as much as he could have in the summer to try and have every chance of succeeding.

 

This is all the difference between what could have happened and what did happen. Who knows what could have happened? We do know what did happen, which was relegation which exposed the club. Under Ashley's ownership.

 

To be clear I certainly blame Ashley for relegation. Any sort of stability in the club last season would have ensured our survival. But how exposed we are having been relegated with Ashley remaining as owner is debatable. And to continue on your theme what did happen was that he didn't find a buyer and he did make a decent effort at giving us a platform to go back up. 

 

Aaargh! We were and are far more exposed as a business having been relegated than in any other scenario (we haven't been promoted yet). Ashley is responsible for this because it happened under his stewardship and he is doing no other, now, than protecting his (perhaps ill-advised) investment. All I want to do is give context to his alleged investment (more likely loans). Everything he has done is as a result of really poor business decisions; at last he seems to have realised what is needed to get the club back to the Premier League. But then he based his acquisition strategy on buying a Premier League club for goodness sake!

[madras]

There is a tendency that argues that if Ashley hadn't come then we could have gone out of business. The fact is that nothing is more likely to have exposed the club to that risk than relegation; to argue anything other is facile and Ashley achieved this quick-time. He deserves no credit for putting money into the club other than on a personal level from his inheritors; he is only protecting his investment.

 

All I want from him is to have the club managed in a sensible and progressive way and then we will have a chance at success.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course no one knows if we'd have gone out of business if Ashley hadn't bought the club. But when he did buy it our balance sheet was insolvent and that means that someone had to guarantee to fund the club for the next 12 months or the auditors wouldn't sign it off as a going concern. If its not signed off as a going concern every secured creditor has the right to foreclose.

 

So who was going to give that guarantee if Ashley didn't?

 

This is not a point that can be validated and doesn't really add to the debate; we were never signed off as anything other than a going concern, given guarantees from the owner. The same guarantees could well have been forthcoming from the previous owners. The fact is we were truly exposed by relegation; don't let the anti-Shepherd view cloud your objectivity.

 

If you read my posts on other threads you will find that I am not anti Shepherd or pro Ashley, imo both have done some good things and some bad. Your idea that the Halls and the Shepherds would have guaranteed to fund the club is certainly interesting, given their track record on making their own funds available for investment.

 

And since Ashley had so much already tied up in the club how exposed were we by relegation in reality? He had to get us back up and didn't asset strip anywhere near as much as he could have in the summer to try and have every chance of succeeding.

 

This is all the difference between what could have happened and what did happen. Who knows what could have happened? We do know what did happen, which was relegation which exposed the club. Under Ashley's ownership.

 

To be clear I certainly blame Ashley for relegation. Any sort of stability in the club last season would have ensured our survival. But how exposed we are having been relegated with Ashley remaining as owner is debatable. And to continue on your theme what did happen was that he didn't find a buyer and he did make a decent effort at giving us a platform to go back up. 

 

Aaargh! We were and are far more exposed as a business having been relegated than in any other scenario (we haven't been promoted yet). Ashley is responsible for this because it happened under his stewardship and he is doing no other, now, than protecting his (perhaps ill-advised) investment. All I want to do is give context to his alleged investment (more likely loans). Everything he has done is as a result of really poor business decisions; at last he seems to have realised what is needed to get the club back to the Premier League. But then he based his acquisition strategy on buying a Premier League club for goodness sake!

many have said he took a gamble on us staying up and he knew if it failed he'd be carrying the losses. he has carried those losses and will probably look to get out when he can. however had fred and co stayed in charge it is possible we'd still be a prem club (though personally i think allardyce would have took us down) but still making year on year losses with nothing left to borrow against. very much the portsmouth position but with bigger debts accompanying our bigger turnover.

[Mick]

Our loss during the last season we had the Halls and shepherds was £32 million before tax, up from £12 million the year before.

 

It is clear which direction we were heading long before Ashley came here.  We had originally taken out a loan for almost £33 million which was to cover the expansion and we were paying 7.36% interest on it.  We had another loan for almost £10 million which we were paying 7.65% interest on, both were secured against future ticket sales. 

 

We also had a loan for almost £17 million which was secured against future TV income.  And we'd spent future income from sponsorship which was showing on the balance sheet as future income. 

 

When the club was floated we had a pot of money which the club spent over the years and once that money was frittered away we were in the shit and losses just increased.  Basically we'd spent our future income long before Ashley appeared on the scene and for anybody to think that we were safe without him is crazy, we'd pawned the crown jewels and were living on future income, we had nothing else to pawn.

 

[Guest fraser]

Our loss during the last season we had the Halls and shepherds was £32 million before tax, up from £12 million the year before.

 

It is clear which direction we were heading long before Ashley came here.  We had originally taken out a loan for almost £33 million which was to cover the expansion and we were paying 7.36% interest on it.  We had another loan for almost £10 million which we were paying 7.65% interest on, both were secured against future ticket sales. 

 

We also had a loan for almost £17 million which was secured against future TV income.  And we'd spent future income from sponsorship which was showing on the balance sheet as future income. 

 

When the club was floated we had a pot of money which the club spent over the years and once that money was frittered away we were in the s*** and losses just increased.  Basically we'd spent our future income long before Ashley appeared on the scene and for anybody to think that we were safe without him is crazy, we'd pawned the crown jewels and were living on future income, we had nothing else to pawn.

 

 

Your post goes back to the Shepherd is better than Ashley is better than Shepherd debate which is now irrelevant. The current debate is about the Llambias statements (and other unattributed ones) suggesting what a good lad Ashley is for putting money into the club. He has to because we were relegated and in order to protect his investment.

[Liam Liam Liam O]

Our loss during the last season we had the Halls and shepherds was £32 million before tax, up from £12 million the year before.

 

It is clear which direction we were heading long before Ashley came here. We had originally taken out a loan for almost £33 million which was to cover the expansion and we were paying 7.36% interest on it. We had another loan for almost £10 million which we were paying 7.65% interest on, both were secured against future ticket sales.

 

We also had a loan for almost £17 million which was secured against future TV income. And we'd spent future income from sponsorship which was showing on the balance sheet as future income.

 

When the club was floated we had a pot of money which the club spent over the years and once that money was frittered away we were in the s*** and losses just increased. Basically we'd spent our future income long before Ashley appeared on the scene and for anybody to think that we were safe without him is crazy, we'd pawned the crown jewels and were living on future income, we had nothing else to pawn.

 

 

Your post goes back to the Shepherd is better than Ashley is better than Shepherd debate which is now irrelevant. The current debate is about the Llambias statements (and other unattributed ones) suggesting what a good lad Ashley is for putting money into the club. He has to because we were relegated and in order to protect his investment.

 

Except that it doesn't mention one being better than the other.

[stalker]

The Ashley vs Shepherd, who was better debate is like discussing the benefits of syphilis compared to herpes

[Guest fraser]

The Ashley vs Shepherd, who was better debate is like discussing the benefits of syphilis compared to herpes

 

I agree and don't enter into that debate.

[Mick]

 

Your post goes back to the Shepherd is better than Ashley is better than Shepherd debate which is now irrelevant. The current debate is about the Llambias statements (and other unattributed ones) suggesting what a good lad Ashley is for putting money into the club. He has to because we were relegated and in order to protect his investment.

 

Your post totally dismisses the state of the club at the time that Ashley bought it.  I could have sworn that this thread was discussing our current situation and why we are were we are and the benefits or not of having Ashley.  It’s too easy to pretend that this is about Shepherd v Ashley, which it isn’t and bury your head in the sand when it suits you.  My post is about what Ashley inherited and it being part of the reason why we’re in the shit. 

[Guest fraser]

 

Your post goes back to the Shepherd is better than Ashley is better than Shepherd debate which is now irrelevant. The current debate is about the Llambias statements (and other unattributed ones) suggesting what a good lad Ashley is for putting money into the club. He has to because we were relegated and in order to protect his investment.

 

Your post totally dismisses the state of the club at the time that Ashley bought it.  I could have sworn that this thread was discussing our current situation and why we are were we are and the benefits or not of having Ashley.  It’s too easy to pretend that this is about Shepherd v Ashley, which it isn’t and bury your head in the sand when it suits you.  My post is about what Ashley inherited and it being part of the reason why we’re in the s***. 

 

Fine; my posts on this thread are about what is happening now and why it is happening.

[Happy Face]

 

Your post goes back to the Shepherd is better than Ashley is better than Shepherd debate which is now irrelevant. The current debate is about the Llambias statements (and other unattributed ones) suggesting what a good lad Ashley is for putting money into the club. He has to because we were relegated and in order to protect his investment.

 

Your post totally dismisses the state of the club at the time that Ashley bought it.  I could have sworn that this thread was discussing our current situation and why we are were we are and the benefits or not of having Ashley.  It’s too easy to pretend that this is about Shepherd v Ashley, which it isn’t and bury your head in the sand when it suits you.  My post is about what Ashley inherited and it being part of the reason why we’re in the shit. 

 

I could see where you were coming from if Ashley had improved the clubs position either financially or positionally (if that's a word).

 

But by December it was him who'd doubled the debt he inherited from £70m to £140m.  Llambias says he's just extended that debt by another £25 or £30m. And we're still in the championship.  In Shepherd's last 4 years he averaged a £12m loss each season.  Llambias has apparently almost trebled that to an average loss of £32m a season over 3 years.

 

The situation he inhereted was a pretty shitty one.  But he's managed to make it a whole lot worse.

[Mick]

Fine; my posts on this thread are about what is happening now and why it is happening.

 

Do you not think that the state of the club which he bought has something to do with why we are where we are?  I know that he could and should have acted differently to certain situations and that he could have avoided our relegation.  That doesn't mean that it's all his fault and that we wouldn't have been in a worse state without him, I'm not saying that we would but our future didn't look good when the debt trebled within 12 months and we had no obvious way of turning things around.

 

The Halls appeared to be almost broke and Cameron Hall appeared to be getting run into the ground by Douglas.  I'm sure that they were fined for putting in accounts months too late and they were losing cash as if it was going out of fashion.  Do you think they could have bailed the club out when our gates had already started to fall and debts were spiralling and we'd mortgaged our future income?

 

Do you think the banks would have carried on lending at a time when everybody knew that a credit crunch was coming?  I know we hadn’t hit the recession by then but we all knew that it was coming at least 12 months before it arrived because just about every financial analyst was predicting it.

[gazza ladra]

The Ashley vs Shepherd, who was better debate is like discussing the benefits of syphilis compared to herpes

Herpes every time.

[Happy Face]

 

Your post goes back to the Shepherd is better than Ashley is better than Shepherd debate which is now irrelevant. The current debate is about the Llambias statements (and other unattributed ones) suggesting what a good lad Ashley is for putting money into the club. He has to because we were relegated and in order to protect his investment.

 

Your post totally dismisses the state of the club at the time that Ashley bought it.  I could have sworn that this thread was discussing our current situation and why we are were we are and the benefits or not of having Ashley.  It’s too easy to pretend that this is about Shepherd v Ashley, which it isn’t and bury your head in the sand when it suits you.  My post is about what Ashley inherited and it being part of the reason why we’re in the shit. 

 

I could see where you were coming from if Ashley had improved the clubs position either financially or positionally (if that's a word).

But by December it was him who'd doubled the debt he inherited from £70m to £140m.  Llambias says he's just extended that debt by another £25 or £30m. And we're still in the championship.  In Shepherd's last 4 years he averaged a £12m loss each season.  Llambias has apparently almost trebled that to an average loss of £32m a season over 3 years.

 

The situation he inhereted was a pretty shitty one.  But he's managed to make it a whole lot worse.

 

What did he do exactly to do this? I thought Quayside said that Ashley inherited a club that was losing £30m a year. 

 

Amongst others, he signed Viduka, Barton, Geremi, Smith and Coloccini on expensive contracts without relegation clauses.  He similarly extended the contracts of Butt, Ameobi and Taylor without condition of relegation, he sacked two managers who required expensive payouts and he got us relegated.

 

We'd lost £30m in Shepherd's last year in charge.  We never lost more than £12m any other year. In the 3 years prior to the £33m loss, the average was £5m a season.  For the loan to have since extended their loans by £96m would be astonishing, VERY worrying, and entirely Ashley's choice.

 

Of course if he were to cancel the loans I'd forgive most of it.

[Mick]

 

I could see where you were coming from if Ashley had improved the clubs position either financially or positionally (if that's a word).

 

But by December it was him who'd doubled the debt he inherited from £70m to £140m.  Llambias says he's just extended that debt by another £25 or £30m. And we're still in the championship.  In Shepherd's last 4 years he averaged a £12m loss each season.  Llambias has apparently almost trebled that to an average loss of £32m a season over 3 years.

 

The situation he inhereted was a pretty shitty one.  But he's managed to make it a whole lot worse.

 

Our financial health has been stabalised and it should begin to improve.

 

If anything good can come from our relegation then it will be getting rid of the dead-wood which we've picked up over the years and probably couldn't afford to get rid of while in the Premiership.  We need good management at the club to gain from our current situation and start to build once again.  Can we do that with Ashley and llambias?  No idea, they haven't looked like being able to do that so far and they must deliver if we go up.

[Happy Face]

 

I could see where you were coming from if Ashley had improved the clubs position either financially or positionally (if that's a word).

 

But by December it was him who'd doubled the debt he inherited from £70m to £140m.  Llambias says he's just extended that debt by another £25 or £30m. And we're still in the championship.  In Shepherd's last 4 years he averaged a £12m loss each season.  Llambias has apparently almost trebled that to an average loss of £32m a season over 3 years.

 

The situation he inhereted was a pretty shitty one.  But he's managed to make it a whole lot worse.

 

Our financial health has been stabalised and it should begin to improve.

 

If anything good can come from our relegation then it will be getting rid of the dead-wood which we've picked up over the years and probably couldn't afford to get rid of while in the Premiership.  We need good management at the club to gain from our current situation and start to build once again.  Can we do that with Ashley and llambias?  No idea, they haven't looked like being able to do that so far and they must deliver if we go up.

 

The only reason the £70m of debt outstanding under Shepherd in the Premier League was less sustainable than the £166m of debt we've now got under Ashley in the Championship is that Ashley is covering it.  That's not a compliment either.

 

 

[Guest malandro]

Our loss during the last season we had the Halls and shepherds was £32 million before tax, up from £12 million the year before.

 

It is clear which direction we were heading long before Ashley came here.  We had originally taken out a loan for almost £33 million which was to cover the expansion and we were paying 7.36% interest on it.  We had another loan for almost £10 million which we were paying 7.65% interest on, both were secured against future ticket sales. 

 

We also had a loan for almost £17 million which was secured against future TV income.  And we'd spent future income from sponsorship which was showing on the balance sheet as future income. 

 

When the club was floated we had a pot of money which the club spent over the years and once that money was frittered away we were in the s*** and losses just increased.  Basically we'd spent our future income long before Ashley appeared on the scene and for anybody to think that we were safe without him is crazy, we'd pawned the crown jewels and were living on future income, we had nothing else to pawn.

 

That fact still remains, with a large and loyal customer base NUFC represented a good acquisition if the club could be turned around. Both the stadium and the training complex had been built, all the component elements needed of a club that could challenge for a CL place were there. The problem was cash flow. So the question is how much investment was needed to turn things around, and what price would have been a fair reflection. Clearly £135m was an absurd price. If Ashley hadn’t waded in Hall and Shepherd would have been forced to lower their price, leaving more of any investment budget to sort out the underlying problem. We might even have ended up being put on the market for a quid by an administrator, but at some point the price would have declined to a point where a buyer would have come in.

 

Ultimately we can’t know what would have happened to NUFC if Ashley had stuck to flogging cheap sportswear, and nor does Mr Ashley. He should just shut the fuck up about what a hero he thinks he is and tell us how the club is going to pay back the £190m (or whatever our debts are now).

 

[Happy Face]

 

Your post goes back to the Shepherd is better than Ashley is better than Shepherd debate which is now irrelevant. The current debate is about the Llambias statements (and other unattributed ones) suggesting what a good lad Ashley is for putting money into the club. He has to because we were relegated and in order to protect his investment.

 

Your post totally dismisses the state of the club at the time that Ashley bought it.  I could have sworn that this thread was discussing our current situation and why we are were we are and the benefits or not of having Ashley.  It’s too easy to pretend that this is about Shepherd v Ashley, which it isn’t and bury your head in the sand when it suits you.  My post is about what Ashley inherited and it being part of the reason why we’re in the shit. 

 

I could see where you were coming from if Ashley had improved the clubs position either financially or positionally (if that's a word).

But by December it was him who'd doubled the debt he inherited from £70m to £140m.  Llambias says he's just extended that debt by another £25 or £30m. And we're still in the championship.  In Shepherd's last 4 years he averaged a £12m loss each season.  Llambias has apparently almost trebled that to an average loss of £32m a season over 3 years.

 

The situation he inhereted was a pretty shitty one.  But he's managed to make it a whole lot worse.

 

What did he do exactly to do this? I thought Quayside said that Ashley inherited a club that was losing £30m a year. 

 

Amongst others, he signed Viduka, Barton, Geremi, Smith and Coloccini on expensive contracts without relegation clauses.  He similarly extended the contracts of Butt, Ameobi and Taylor without condition of relegation, he sacked two managers who required expensive payouts and he got us relegated.

 

We'd lost £30m in Shepherd's last year in charge.  We never lost more than £12m any other year. In the 3 years prior to the £33m loss, the average was £5m a season.  For the loan to have since extended their loans by £96m would be astonishing, VERY worrying, and entirely Ashley's choice.

 

Of course if he were to cancel the loans I'd forgive most of it.

 

Paid Dennis Wise £2m a year...

 

...to spend £5m on Xisco....

 

etc.

[Mick]

 

Amongst others, he signed Viduka, Barton, Geremi, Smith and Coloccini on expensive contracts without relegation clauses.  He similarly extended the contracts of Butt, Ameobi and Taylor without condition of relegation, he sacked two managers who required expensive payouts and he got us relegated.

 

We'd lost £30m in Shepherd's last year in charge.  We never lost more than £12m any other year. In the 3 years prior to the £33m loss, the average was £5m a season.  For the loan to have since extended their loans by £96m would be astonishing, VERY worrying, and entirely Ashley's choice.

 

Of course if he were to cancel the loans I'd forgive most of it.

 

Smith was the first signing they made, the others were lined up before they were in control and all they did was agree to the transfers before they knew the true state of the club.  They weren't in a position to do much different at that time without knowing the state of the club, what do you think would have happened if they had refused to sanction those transfers at that time?  The club was running and they had to allow the club to function on a normal basis at that time.

 

As for the losses, the season before we lost £33 million was an 11 month season and we lost £12 million.  I think we made a small loss in 2005 and a £4 million profit in 2004 so I don't know where you're getting your figures from, mine are coming straight from our accounts.  I can't be arsed to look to see when we got something like £10 million to cover the injury to Michael Owen, we had to pay his wages once his injury cleared up so we had a boost one financial year.